So, for the cost of the Roomba, the Wii, and a computer (so let's say, what, $1500?)...
Okay, it makes for a good joke, but it's not really fair to count the cost of stuff that the guy would've owned anyway. This probably includes the computer, and quite possibly the Wii and Roomba as well.
What was the name of the guy who hacked into a telco server and stole some document, got sued for some ridiculously high figure that included e.g. the cost of the computer that the document was originally word-processed on, and then it turned out the telco was selling basically the same document for about $15?
It's worth pointing out that the parent is not being sarcastic. You can sell it for whatever price you like - but you still have to make the source available, and you can't place any restrictions on your customers selling copies for whatever price they like. In practice, this tends to drive the cost of GPLed software down to $0.
If "the smallest amount of code that could work" is to hardcode the answer for that specific testcase,
Anyone who would write either the test or the code with that mindset has already lost. A sane test includes a few different inputs, including as many edge and corner cases as you can think of.
Also, by coding a little bit at a time you could end up with a monstrous hack-job of spaghetti code. It is possible that by stepping back and looking at the design at a higher level you could have come up with something more elegant, compact, and maintainable.
But if you don't start by learning to build small pieces cleanly, then you're just about guaranteed to end up with a monstrous hack-job of spaghetti code. Once you grok the small pieces, then you can usefully study the higher-level design.
This is a common enough error that it really ought to have its own term. Per Wikipedia, the original definition of "learning curve" calculated unit cost as a function of experience, while the common usage here is based on a calculation of total cost as a function of experience. Both are affected by (1) the starting point and (2) the rate of improvement; in particular, the common usage of "steep learning curve" suggests (1) high and (2) slow.
Why wouldn't the spammers just auto-convert a+b@c.d to a@c.d, thus denying you the knowledge of who they bought your address from? Would this lose them a significant group of recipients?
I suppose it could have been, but are there any advantages? I can think of at least one disadvantage ('ls -l' gets ugly - remember, this couldn't be done at a folder level, due to the need to selectively fork a few files).
My first full-time employer (95-96) used hard links as follows:
We had a base package (all programs set no-write/delete), and some clients with a handful of custom mods apiece. So we had a script that created a testing directory for a new client (initially populated with hard links to the base package's programs), and another script that removed a specified hard link and replaced it with a separate writeable copy.
Bingo, each testing directory's disk usage is limited to data plus modified programs, you can tell what's been modified in it by looking at which programs aren't hard links, and the base package can't be hosed except by root.
At my current job, if we need a testing directory at all (a lot of my work is just writing custom reports which is safe to do in production), we tend to keep them on the client's network which we can remote-access at need.
I have yet to work anywhere that uses multiple-programmer teams routinely enough to use formal CVS, though it might be argued that one or two of my employers should have at least given it a hard look.
To be fair, his people might be typical Windows end users who don't particularly know nor care that some of their mapped network drives happen to have Linux behind them.
A sane marketing department would think "instead of using crap as a foot in the door for support contracts, let's use good stuff as a foot in the door for more good stuff". (Assuming your developers are competent; if not, then the only sane move is to leave.) Not only does this avoid giving customers unreasonable expectations about how cheap/quick things can be done, it also avoids customers who already have such expectations when they walk in the door, and cannot be convinced otherwise; those customers are an albatross round the neck, so you want them to drag down your insane competitors, leaving you and your sane competitors free to spur one another upward.
Slashdot Mirror
My first job in the industry mostly involved software running on OldSCO. Ah well.
Acronym Finder suggests that this stands for Product/Project Lifecycle Management.
Corrected link
What part of "without harming normal tissues" fails to address your concern? It's in TFS, for $DEITY's sake!
Like Dilbert once pointed out, at least no one can come up to my non-speech-recognizing computer and say COMPUTER, DELETE FILE!
I'm a bit disappointed.
Okay, it makes for a good joke, but it's not really fair to count the cost of stuff that the guy would've owned anyway. This probably includes the computer, and quite possibly the Wii and Roomba as well.
What was the name of the guy who hacked into a telco server and stole some document, got sued for some ridiculously high figure that included e.g. the cost of the computer that the document was originally word-processed on, and then it turned out the telco was selling basically the same document for about $15?
How many people do you really think there are who (1) write HTML messages and (2) even know what digital signing is, much less use it?
Oh, ha ha. And what if I don't want the display to be susceptible to objects passing between the projector and screen?
I nominate "Opera Running on the OLPC Laptop".
It's worth pointing out that the parent is not being sarcastic. You can sell it for whatever price you like - but you still have to make the source available, and you can't place any restrictions on your customers selling copies for whatever price they like. In practice, this tends to drive the cost of GPLed software down to $0.
I'll have some of whatever this fellow is smoking, please.
"I'll have a finger sandwich, hold the mold."
"And, uh, I'd like a glass of cold gravy with a hair in it, please."
This is a common enough error that it really ought to have its own term. Per Wikipedia, the original definition of "learning curve" calculated unit cost as a function of experience, while the common usage here is based on a calculation of total cost as a function of experience. Both are affected by (1) the starting point and (2) the rate of improvement; in particular, the common usage of "steep learning curve" suggests (1) high and (2) slow.
I have no idea whether M&S suits are any good or not, but figured the intended joke was that no one would wear one of them even without the RFID tags.
Why wouldn't the spammers just auto-convert a+b@c.d to a@c.d, thus denying you the knowledge of who they bought your address from? Would this lose them a significant group of recipients?
I suppose it could have been, but are there any advantages? I can think of at least one disadvantage ('ls -l' gets ugly - remember, this couldn't be done at a folder level, due to the need to selectively fork a few files).
My first full-time employer (95-96) used hard links as follows:
We had a base package (all programs set no-write/delete), and some clients with a handful of custom mods apiece. So we had a script that created a testing directory for a new client (initially populated with hard links to the base package's programs), and another script that removed a specified hard link and replaced it with a separate writeable copy.
Bingo, each testing directory's disk usage is limited to data plus modified programs, you can tell what's been modified in it by looking at which programs aren't hard links, and the base package can't be hosed except by root.
At my current job, if we need a testing directory at all (a lot of my work is just writing custom reports which is safe to do in production), we tend to keep them on the client's network which we can remote-access at need.
I have yet to work anywhere that uses multiple-programmer teams routinely enough to use formal CVS, though it might be argued that one or two of my employers should have at least given it a hard look.
To be fair, his people might be typical Windows end users who don't particularly know nor care that some of their mapped network drives happen to have Linux behind them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Mayer
Not gonna argue relative placement with the metric buttload of other nominees, but figured she was at least worth mentioning.
A sane marketing department would think "instead of using crap as a foot in the door for support contracts, let's use good stuff as a foot in the door for more good stuff". (Assuming your developers are competent; if not, then the only sane move is to leave.) Not only does this avoid giving customers unreasonable expectations about how cheap/quick things can be done, it also avoids customers who already have such expectations when they walk in the door, and cannot be convinced otherwise; those customers are an albatross round the neck, so you want them to drag down your insane competitors, leaving you and your sane competitors free to spur one another upward.
Symbolic links can also become outdated if the target moves. It's hard links that can't.